The early returns are in, and the NHL's new 3-on-3 format is doing what it was supposed to do.
Getting rid of the shootout.
Including the Washington Capitals' come-from-behind win over the Toronto Maple Leafs on Saturday, there were only 13 of the skills competitions through the first 210 games of the season.
The drop-off has been so dramatic that, before Sunday's games, 14 teams had yet to have a shootout. Only five have had more than one.
On the whole, only 6 per cent of NHL games are ending in shootouts this season, which is down more than half from the average over the first 10 years of its existence: 13.4 per cent.
Many influential voices around the league like what they see, including Detroit Red Wings general manager Ken Holland, who has likely become 3-on-3 hockey's strongest proponent the past several years.
"I think it's been fabulous," Holland said on Sunday, two days after his team beat the Leafs in a wild 3-on-3 session that ended with defenceman Jakub Kindl roofing the winner. "Very exciting hockey, lots of chances and highlight goals. What am I missing?"
Even those who have been on the wrong end of 3-on-3's nuttiness more than once have spoken out in favour of the change.
"Anything to avoid the shootout is a good thing," Leafs coach Mike Babcock said.
The NHL made the switch to 3-on-3 overtime in the off-season primarily because the league was worried shootouts were deciding too many games.
Ten years ago, when the shootout first came in, the NHL was higher-scoring and more games were ending either in regulation or 4-on-4 play.
But especially over the past four seasons, the prevalence of the shootout has slowly risen, to the point there were 181 of them in 2011-12 and nearly that many in both of the past two years.
So far, the NHL is on pace for only 76 in 2015-16.
That means the average team could go from taking part in 11 or 12 shootouts a season to only five.
Other leagues, such as the Junior A British Columbia Hockey League, have eliminated shootouts altogether. They instead play a longer overtime – five minutes of 4-on-4 followed by five minutes of 3-on-3 – and then settle for a tie in the rare instances that games remain deadlocked (under 2 per cent last season).
In another quirk, penalties taken during 3-on-3 in that league are penalty shots.
Not everyone in the NHL agrees more overtime is a good thing. Some players have already grumbled about the 3-on-3 format – Winnipeg Jets defenceman Dustin Byfuglien called it "terrible" and "not hockey" after one loss – which resembles a similar outcry when it was introduced in the AHL last season.
Others have complained that half of the team's rosters sit on the bench during overtime, as coaches often go with a small group of six forwards and three defencemen in the extra frame.
Not every GM is as gung-ho as Holland about the aesthetic value of the change, either.
"I saw the entertainment factor in the AHL last year and see it this year in the NHL," St. Louis Blues GM Doug Armstrong said. "But it no more represents the better team to me than the shootout."
What also remains to be seen is if the trend of so many games being decided in 3-on-3 even continues. Coaches are already beginning to work on it more in practice and developing new tactics, including Babcock getting his players to change with ridiculous frequency.
(The Leafs' average shift in overtime on Saturday in Washington was 34 seconds.)
It's certainly not out of the question that teams find more ways to quell the chaos despite having so few players on the ice. But coaches say they appreciate being able to use their best players to decide games instead of turning to shootout specialists and trick shots.
If it's "not hockey," it at least resembles the sport more than the shootout.
"It's better than what we've been doing," Dallas Stars coach Lindy Ruff said. "Is it the perfect solution? I don't know – but I like it."
